Sunday, December 11, 2016

This from the land of the 'free'. A 'Professor' at Orange Coast College in California, a Ms Olga Marie 'Stable' Cox, went on a rant in front of her student class to describe the election of President-elect Donald Trump as 'an act of terrorism' and further, that Vice-President elect Mike Pence was 'one of the most anti-gay humans in the country.

For the record Cox teaches a human sexuality course.

A student who recorded her rant on video and had it posted on a website has now been threatened with legal action by the 'Professors' Union ... the Coast Federation of Educators, AFT local 1911, wrote "This is an illegal recording without the permission of the instructor. The student who is seating in an assigned position will be identified and may face legal action".

So, by the Union and 'her' twisted logic, it's ok to go on a mad rant but it's not ok to be called to account.

Think Lance Corporal Jones had it about right when he said "they don't like the hard steel up em'.

31 comments:

Well, yes, that's right. It does. An academic can tell her students whatever she wants, as long as she's not deliberately lying or misleading them. The students, on the other hand, can and do get told to shut the fuck up when the academic sees fit. It's pretty much the same as this blog - we authors get to say what we like, but commenters get to contribute only to the extent we allow.

So, by the Union and 'her' twisted logic, it's ok to go on a mad rant but it's not ok to be called to account.

Er, no. The USA and its individual states, like NZ, have laws regulating the circumstances under which you're allowed to record people and publish the recordings, and it sounds like this student breached those laws - or at least, the union believes there's a case to be made that they did. If her students want to "call her to account," the university will have means for them to do so. Although it's not clear what they'd be calling her to account for - hyperbole, maybe?

Milt ... with respect, bullshit. When someone goes over the top with inflammatory rhetoric it's right and proper to call them out. Describing the election of Trump as a terrorist act is certainly inflammatory ... it might be argued as incitement to violence. Academic freedom has its limits.

California is a liberal State but can I suggest that any attempt to carry out the threat would be treated with derision by the Court(s).

The left really need to get over the fact they lost. I commend to them Mike Moore's comment ... 'the people are right even when they're wrong'.

Terrorism.....an act designed to frighten and inspire terror in a group or population............. As there a lot of people in the US and the rest of the world terrified of what the Orange one might do in a fit of pique the lady is not too far off the money.

Three Marine generals in his cabinet is worrying enough. In order to try and keep one campaign promise he has said he will send double the number or troops to destroy ISIS conveniently forgetting that it was the Bush/Rumsfeld actions in Fallujia that set ISIS in motion. The Iraqi ground troops must do it themselves or be seen to do it themselves otherwise the whole thing kicks off again and we are no further forward...

I'm somewhat with Milt on this one. If the students have a problem with what that lecturer is saying, then the college will have a disputes and greivances procedure, which the students can use (and yes, the lecturer having a rant about the election when you are there to learn about human sexuality could well be grounds for complaint). That is the procedure to use to "call [the lecturer] to account", not secretly recording the lecturer and posting it to social media.

And in addition to any state or national laws regarding recording, the college probably also has regulations around when and how lectures can be recorded as well. If the students are in breach of those, they they are also subject to disciplinary sanction.

There is a right way to handle such issues and a wrong way - if the students have chosen to go about this the wrong way, then they should also be "called to account" for thier actions.

"The use by any person, including a student, of any electronic listening or recording device in any classroom without the prior consent of the instructor is prohibited, except as necessary to provide reasonable auxiliary aids and academic adjustments to disabled students. Any person, other than a student, who willfully violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Any student violating this section shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action."

Adolf - that's no reason not to use the proper grievence procedure in the first instance. If, after going throught the correct channels, the plaintiff feels that due and proper procedure wasn't followed, or that the outcome was manifestly unjust, then there is a case for escalation, either to a higher body, or the media.

flat-Earth no growth environmental Marxists discover who The Trumpster is going to nominate to run the EPA

TRUMP has nominated Scott Pruitt to run the EPA - Pruitt as OK's AG spend the last eight years surging Obama's EPA about COAL and winning. TRUMP's transition team has already asked for an audit of every EPA programme predicated on global warming and every current EPA employee who has worked on such programmes - all those programmes will be terminated and all those staffers fired on day 1.

TRUMP has nominated Rex Tillerson. CEO of Exxon-Mobil (which has also spent the last eight years suing Obama's EPA about OIL and winning) to be Secretary of State.

Best of all TRUMP's transition team are already signalling to Canada, the EU, the UK BREXIT team, and no doubt even to Oz & NZ that anyone who wants to keep doing any business with the USA must permit US fossil fuel imports with no government rules, laws, rules, tarrifs, subsidies, carbon taxes, imposts, credit trading etc, on the import and use of all US fuels.

Same for food (want to export to the USA, must permit sale, cultivation, etc of GM foods with no notice or restrictions).Same for healthcare (want to import Herception-B or any other US drugs --- sure but you must permit US healthcare companies to compete with any government hospitals, doctors, etc... Oh and no government price-fixing (PHARMACY).Same for education under Betsy DeVos. Want to keep importing or using US textbooks, resources, etc etc - must permit US education companies (Pearson, Scholastic, ACE, etc) to do business freely in your country on the same basis as government schools.

David ... if you can't pick the difference between the two posts then I can't help you.

For all ... the rhetoric on both sides of the debate is puerile and dangerous. You may recall that during the election campaign a Republican Party Headquarters was firebombed. Labeling Trumps election as an 'act of terrorism' could be the catalyst for the for deranged to reprocate that attack. Hate speech (and this is hate speech) inspires hate and it's quite remarkable that those who are quick to condemn Trumps attacks on immigrants cannot see the double standard they are applying in defending the Professor so called.

The freedom of speech (academic or whatever) guaranteed in the US Constitution is not an absolute freedom. Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and these have been read into the Constitution by the US Supreme Court. Case law has it that this includes 'the lewd, the obscene, the profane, the libelous, the insulting or fighting words ... those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breech of the peace'. I guess you can argue the toss as to whether 'her' mouthings could be seen as inciting an 'immediate' breech of the peace. Were the Union to pursue the case I guess the defense team would be arguing that it was in the public interest to 'out' Ms Cox.

For Noel. The California Education Code is subordinate to SCOTUS case law.

The freedom of speech (academic or whatever) guaranteed in the US Constitution is not an absolute freedom.

true, but not the whole truth.

The Freedom of Speech granted under the First Amendment only prohibits the government from placing limits, it does not prevent businesses, schools, colleagues, or demagogues from limiting free speech.

Hate speech (and this is hate speech) inspires hate ...

Hate speech, however you define it, is not defined or prohibited in US law. It is how Trump can get away with his bullying tweets that then launch hundreds of attacks by his army of trumpanzees and any one who dares criticise Donny From Queens. It is how the haters of the KKK, The Southern baptist Churches, the pro-forced birthers, and the Westbro Baptist Church are immune from prosecution.

'the lewd, the obscene, the profane, the libelous, the insulting or fighting words ... those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breech of the peace'

Again, not illegal in the US. It is how Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione, et al made their fortunes. It is why atheists can iopenly speak out against religion, because their profane language is protected speech. It is why Donny from Queens said "Well in England they have a system where you can actually sue if someone says something wrong,

David ... so you're saying Supreme Court case law ain't relevant to the the conversation. That's an interesting take on the third branch of the US Government. Not one shared by too many people thank goodness.

But we're getting away from the case at point. Clearly you would argue that a person can say what he/she wants without fear or favor. I would argue that incitement to violence is not protected speech and when someone calls the election of Trump a terrorist act that may be seen as incitement to violence.

Why you would defend that as OK quite escapes me. BTW ... the SBC is the largest Protestant Church in the USA ... labeling their members as 'haters' per se is about as smart as HRC's description of Republicans as 'deplorables'.

On Saturday the Republicans made a clean sweep of the elections in Louisiana for the Senate seat and two House seats. Seems like the deplorables ain't doing too bad.

Noel ... you were arguing that Cox had the California Education Code on her side. I was merely pointing out an alternative view and yes, California (and the US) being a litigious society, this could well end up in the Supreme Court ... lawyers for both parties will be rubbing their hands; more work for the wicked.

There seems to a drift from the original premise that somehow a teacher has hectored a student.

The greatest bully in the room is the one with the biggest bully pulpit.

For example, look at his bullying of a teenager who dared question him. http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/trumps-harassment-of-an-18-year-old-girl-on-twitter-led-to-death-threats.html

Or how he hounded a union rep who had the guts to call oput his bullshit about the jobs "saved" at Carrier. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/us/politics/donald-trump-twitter-carrier-chuck-jones.html?_r=0

He is a bully and a manipulator, he is in now way fit to be POTUS. He isn't fit to have a twitter account. He isn't fit to be anything at all except a pussy grabber.